OCLC on the Run

OCLC is running scared. My comments on their attempt to monopolize library records has been Slashdotted, our petition has received hundreds of signatures, and they’re starting to feel the heat.

At a talk I gave this morning to area librarians, an OCLC rep stood up and attempted to assure the crowd that what I was saying “wasn’t entirely true”. “What wasn’t true?” I asked. “I’d love to correct things.” She declined to say, insisting she “didn’t want to get into an argument.”

This evening, OCLC’s Vice President for WorldCat and Metadata, provides more details. In a blog comment (which, I understand, was sent to OCLC members), she tries to downplay the issue, continuing the OCLC trend of doublespeak about this serious change.

She tries to claim we’re on the same side (“We are likely in solid agreement”) and insists they are just updating “the principles … which have been in place since 1987” and absurdly claiming that the new rules are just a “clarification”. (This is just one of a number of black-is-white falsehoods in her post.)

But never once does she defend the actual changes. And they’re right there in black-and-white: the records aren’t allowed to be used in anything that “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat.” I’m not sure how much clearer they can get; these new rules prohibit anyone from building anything that gets anywhere close to WorldCat.

My fundamental point stands: As servers have gotten cheaper, it’s become easy to do for free the things OCLC charges such outrageous amounts for. But OCLC can’t have that — they’d have to give up their huge office complex and high salaries (Ms. Calhoun was recently hired away from academia, so her salary isn’t available yet, but her fellow VPs make around $300,000/year). So they’re trying to stamp out the competition.

Karen insists that “OCLC welcomes collaboration with Open Library”, which seems a funny way of putting it. As I said last time, they’ve played hardball: trying to cut off our funding, hurt our reputation, and pressured libraries not to cooperate. When we tried to make a deal with them, they dragged their feet for months, pretended to come to terms, and then had their lawyers send us an “agreement” to sign that would require we take all OCLC-related records off our site.

Karen, if you really want to “increas[e] information access to users around the globe”, like you say, here’s an easy first step: put the 2 million WorldCat web pages you shared with Google and Yahoo up for download on your website. It’s only a small portion of your catalog and you’ve already shared it with others. Until you take even a baby step like that, it’s hard to take your protestations of good intent seriously.

Great post. More detail would be welcome; or a series of longer essays with the context of the history of OCLC, which is indeed delightful. It is important to note that when they highlight their past it isn’t simply to gloss over what is going on now — that is the ethos that has permated the membership, and it is the strongest point of leverage for dealing with them now (stronger than shaming them publicly).

I saw this bruhaha coming a long time ago (well, relativly; in library years it’s short, almost a ping, but in internet years it’s aaaaages) and I’m sad and angry to see it come. The library world is at a crossroads, created by OCLC’s need to change.

Their argument will always be that they’re a member organisation. Now that many, many of their members express concern for this development, will they listen? Maybe those members should look for alternatives that actually benefits us all? The library world is already in peril - risking being irrelevant to the world - and we don’t need this nonsense. We need to be more open and cooperative, not less. I think people underestimate the implication here where OCLC is acting like any other money-based business out there; the customers are free to choose what’s right for them.

I work for a library services worker cooperative. This move by OCLC should provoke members to reassert control of their cooperative. In the meantime, like the poster above: I’m in. What can I do to help out?

Aaron— I don’t think you accurately reflected the exchange when mentioning this statement from the NELINET forum:

“At a talk I [Aaron] gave this morning to area librarians, an OCLC rep stood up and attempted to assure the crowd that what I was saying “wasn’t entirely true”. “What wasn’t true?” I asked. “I’d love to correct things.” She declined to say, insisting she “didn’t want to get into an argument.”

Although the OCLC Rep did indicate she didn’t want to get into a protracted discussion with you (admitting that she wasn’t the correct OCLC person to do so) she did make clear that your statement about an OCLC requirement to include a field (996) referencing the OCLC record use policy in all records was not true— this requirement was removed in revisions well before your statement to the contrary.

She also made clear that you are just assuming that OCLC doesn’t like what Open Library and others are doing/would like to do— as OCLC has indicated, time and time again, fill out the form and ask for permission if you think you might be in violation of the policy— OCLC may be perfectly willing to approve your intended use and sign a separate agreement.

I know it might be more fun to castigate OCLC for what you think they might say, rather than find out whether you actually have anything to complain about, but the collegial thing to do is to fill out the form, explain the usage as you intend, and see what they say. You may be pleasantly surprised at the outcome, or you may discover that you do have something to complain about, but I don’t think its fair to complain until you’ve discovered that.

Anon, I never said it was required. Both in my talk and in my blog I said they were requesting it, which is true (the request is in the FAQ, for example).

We’ve asked OCLC for permission, time and time again, as I noted in this very post:

When we tried to make a deal with them, they dragged their feet for months, pretended to come to terms, and then had their lawyers send us an “agreement” to sign that would require we take all OCLC-related records off our site.